The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative

Case Received: February 18, 1998

Author: Wynet Smith

Tel: (867) 982-3310

Fax: (867) 982-3311

Email: wynetsm@polarnet.ca

I propose to present a case study on the resource management institutions and processes created to regulate and manage the land and wildlife bases in two areas in the Northwest Territories, Canada. The two specific land claims that I propose to discuss in detail: the Gwich'in Land Claim in the northern Mackenzie River Basin and the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement and its organizations.

I will discuss the regional resource management agencies created, as well as the local aboriginal committees that are key elements in the overall structure and operations of the new systems. The main intent of both types of organizations, however, is to provide increased local and regional control over the land base, which is of great importance to these groups who still rely heavily on the land for their livelihood.

While I will provide some background information on the larger political and social context, I propose to focus on the actual implementation issues that these new organizations have faced and how they are dealing with their respective situations. I will portray on a broad level, the range of resource management agencies created, but will focus on the details of the land management institutions.

My involvement in both cases has been as a technical staff member, in the Gwich'in case to a co-management body, and in the Nunavut case, to a Inuit organization. There are many common factors that have emerged in both situations that serve to underline the need to take a concerted, pro-active approach to community participation in land management. While aboriginal ownership and more aboriginal involvement in land management are giant steps forward in the resource management field, the direct input of community values and knowledge into decision-making processes is essential to achieve effective, responsive land management.

Until about twenty years ago, the aboriginal groups of northern Canada had very little say over land use activities on their traditional lands and resources. Federal and territorial governments made decisions on their behalf and informed them of the rule of law. In the last 15 years, however, a number of Land Claims have been negotiated between the federal and territorial governments and native groups. Self-government has also be an important part of this process, and the Northwest Territories will in fact be splitting into two territories in just over a year.

The Land Claims contain a number of radical changes to the resource management system. These include land tenure changes, the creation of new resource management agencies, and a greater focus on regional and local control of the land and wildlife resources. Aboriginal groups have gained ownership to huge tracts of land and now have direct responsibility for managing these lands. As a result, they have had to develop the capacity within their own organizations to manage lands at both the regional and local level.

As well as the aboriginal organizations, there have also been a number of new Institutions of Public Government created to manage the land, water and wildlife resources. The institutions are widely referred to as co-management boards since they are comprised of aboriginal and government representatives. In general, there have been Land and/or Water Boards, Wildlife Boards, Land Use Planning Boards, and Environmental Impact Review Boards created. There are minor differences between the Gwich'in and Nunavut systems. The Gwich'in have a common Land and Water Board that regulates on both federal and aboriginal lands. The Nunavut system consists of a water board with responsibilities for all lands, but with separate federal and aboriginal agencies responsible for land management.

The aboriginal groups in both areas have set up their own land management and administration system to control their common lands. There are some major differences that relate to the different regulatory authority of the co-management boards. Within Nunavut, the Inuit Associations have much more direct control over the land use activities on Inuit Owned Lands. There is not a co-management board regulating the land use. In many ways, this puts more emphasis on the need to have a well-developed and comprehensive set of rules and procedures.

One of the most important elements in both land claims and for both the co-management boards and the aboriginal organizations, is the involvement of the local or community level. Without the meaningful participation of community groups and individuals in the management of common lands, the goal of local control is lost. I would argue that co-management groups and regional level aboriginal involvement does not guarantee that local concerns are reflected in land use decisions.

There is recognition of this fact, however, in both land claim areas and within both types of organizations (co-management and aboriginal groups). Each area has community groups with the responsibility for ensuring local input into decision-making processes regarding land use.

Within Nunavut, each Inuit Association has a regional lands department responsible for the daily administration of land use activities and the development of resource policy. These regional-level departments have built in community consultation processes. Each land use application is sent to the appropriate Community Lands and Resource Committee for review and comment. These committees ensure that there is direct community control and input in the management of the commonly owned land resources.

There is also a Nunavut-wide Policy process in place. The Inuit organizations have created Lands and Policy Advisory Committee that consists of the Vice-Presidents of the various Inuit organizations, with the Land Department staff of the four organizations providing technical input.

In the Gwich'in region, there are community Renewable Resource Committees that provide input to a number of organizations, including the Gwich'in Land Administration and the co-management bodies responsible for wildlife and land management.

During the first five years of the implementation of both land claims, it has become clear through workshops and meetings with the community groups in each area, that there is concern about the meaningfulness of their role. Community members are concerned that their values, knowledge and desires are not being considered within the regional level processes. The message has been quite clear that the co-management groups and the aboriginal lands departments must strive to achieve better community involvement than the government departments they have replaced.

Within the Gwich'in area, many of the co-management bodies have recognized the need to be more responsive to community values and have held a series of workshops over the last two years aimed at getting peoples' concerns and ideas for solutions on the table. An integrated approach has been taken in an attempt to solve confusion about jurisdictions and responsibilities. Each round of workshops has focused more and more on what the community needs are, what they feel they need to fulfill their roles (whether training or information), and how they want regional groups and industry to work with them.

In the Nunavut area, this process is also underway but has many different elements to it. A large part of the differences is due to the vast geographic area, and the range of Regional Inuit Associations involved in the process. It is a challenge to remain response to community needs while meeting the needs of various jurisdictions. The Regional Inuit Associations, however, are attempting to ensure that the community groups are more informed and involved. Each region is or has undertaken training sessions with the community groups.

Both the Inuit and Gwich'in approaches reveal the importance of the community-level of organization. Without community-based groups that are organized and connected to the issues and the land on a daily basis, the regional groups are crippled from being truly representative of local needs.

While the extent of regional and community-level control achieved by the aboriginal groups in the north may not be widely achievable in most areas of the world, many of the lessons are transferable. Key elements of the success include:

• Land tenure or ownership: this provides a true base from which a group (whether community or regional) can have control of their own resources;

• Coordination and communication between resource management agencies: whether co-management institutions or native organizations, there is a clearly defined need to communicate (information, technological, tools and approaches) to each other and to co-ordinate processes and activities. This is especially important between agencies with different mandates.

• Effective community groups: local community groups with the resources and support to provide feedback to regional groups.

• Regional systems and processes that are responsive to the values and needs of the community groups and which adequately address the local point of view.

Perhaps the most important lesson to extract from the Gwich'in and Nunavut Land Claim land management systems is that the creation of co-management and aboriginal organizations with land management responsibilities is not the end product for which to strive. They are certainly important tools to use to achieve community-based resource management. These groups are not the underlying essential ingredient; the community groups and their involvement in land use decisions are the key factor. This is an important lesson for all aboriginal groups to remember.